A friend of mine, Jack Harvey, sent in the following guest blog about Obama's shaky Israel policies.
For those of us who are watching the American elections closely, an interesting hint of the difference between the two candidates' views on Israel emerged recently. Ben Smith, blogging at Politico, points to two recent letters from American legislators to President Bush supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas rockets.
One letter was signed by Senator John McCain and 76 other Senators—almost the entire Senate, practically speaking. It makes the case for Israel in strong terms. The other letter was signed by Senator Barack Obama—and only Senator Barack Obama.
What could be the reason for Obama’s “dissent”? Smith writes: “The letters don’t differ on major points....But...Obama’s is extremely focused on the clarity of his message, and isn’t about to sign onto others’ roughly similar words or views.”
Put less charitably, Obama wanted to draw attention to himself, in order to win back wavering support among pro-Israel voters (including Jews).
However, Mark Hemingway of the National Review also notes that there is something troubling about Obama’s description of the conflict.
In the second paragraph of his letter, Obama writes:
“But I am deeply concerned that Israel's security has been put at risk both because of renewed threats from implacable enemies like Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and because of policy choices by the United States. [Emphasis added]” |
Hemingway comments:
“Does Obama really want to go around blaming Israel's security problems on the U.S., let alone do it in the same sentence he notes the threats presented by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas? Well, you'd certainly be hard pressed to find many people in congress willing to sign on to that notion.” |
Obama’s letter sums up the problem he has with pro-Israel voters. He can’t get the message right, even when he tries to pander. And that’s either because he’s inexperienced on the issue, or because he quietly shares at least some of the views of the anti-Israel left—or both.
In another well-known example, Obama told AIPAC, for example, that Jerusalem “must remain undivided”, then back-tracked the very next day when both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority leadership complained.
Obama’s Israel ambiguity will persist beyond Election Day. It’s hard to know how he would actually perform if he won. But one thing is fairly clear: Obama believes Bush “neglected” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and he wants to take a more active and involved approach as president. Whether Obama is a neophyte or a radical, his eagerness to take control, given his frequent missteps, ought to be a little worrying to friends of Israel.
Comments Disclaimer